Ever since the 2000 election, exit poll naysayers have stated a) Edison Research claims that their exit polls aren’t designed to detect fraud; b) the sample size is too small and c) the questions are too lengthy and complex.

Sample size? Big enough so that the MoE was exceeded in 12 of 25 Democratic primary exit polls – a 1 in 4 trillion probability. Questions too lengthy? You mean asking males and females who they voted for? Not designed to detect fraud? That is true; unadjusted exit polls are adjusted to match the corrupt recorded vote – and cover up the fraud

In his recent NY Times article, Nate Cohn reverts to classic exit poll naysayer talking points that have been debunked long ago. I thought I was done debunking their posts.

According to Nate, the exit polls are always wrong. He maintains that they were wrong in the 2000 and 2004 elections and that Bush won both elections fairly; there was no fraud. It is common knowledge that Bush stole both elections. This has been proven by the mathematically impossible exit poll discrepancies, the True Vote Model and Cumulative Vote Share analysis. Unadjusted exit polls were close to the True Vote. The discrepancies were due to corrupted vote counts, not bad polling.

It is important to keep in mind that historical evidence of fraud is based on a recurring pattern: The vast majority of exit polls that exceed the margin of error favor the progressive candidate. Virtually all exit polls shift to the establishment candidate in the recorded vote.

Nate ignores or is ignorant of the overwhelming evidence proving that the Democratic primary was stolen. He cannot refute these facts:

–Sanders’ exit poll share exceeded his recorded share in 24 of the 26 primaries exit polled. The probability is 1 in 190,000.

– Sanders exit poll share exceed his recorded share by more than the margin of error in 11 of the 26 primaries. The probability is 1 in 77 billion.

Is the exit poll shift to Clinton just pure luck? Or is something else going on? Let’s review and debunk Nate’s comments.

I didn’t write about this during the primary season, since I didn’t want to dignify the views of conspiracy theorists. But they’re still going. The exit polls are a sufficient basis to make this determination, in the eyes of the conspiracists, because exit polls are used internationally to detect fraud. They’re supposedly very accurate.

Note the immediate use of the term conspiracy theorist; a sure sign of an Internet troll. But Nate is not a troll; he’s writing for the NY Times.

All of this starts with a basic misconception: that the exit polls are usually pretty good. I have no idea where this idea comes from, because everyone who knows anything about early exit polls knows that they’re not great. The 2000,2004, 2008- exit polls were biased. Kerry and Gore both lost.

In 2004, the exit polls showed John Kerry easily winning an election he clearly lost — with both a huge error and systematic bias outside of the “margin of error.” The national exits showed Kerry ahead by three points (and keep in mind the sample size on the national exit is vastly larger than for a state primary exit poll) and leading in states like Virginia, Ohio and Florida — which all went to George W. Bush.

Kerry clearly won. It wasn’t even close. Nate believes the exit polls were wrong and that Bush won fairly. These posts prove that Kerry won.

The allegations are remarkably consistent. They go like this: Mr. Sanders did better in the early exit polls than he did in the final result. Therefore, Mrs. Clinton probably stole the election. The exit polls are a sufficient basis to make this determination, in the eyes of the conspiracists, because exit polls are used internationally to detect fraud. They’re supposedly very accurate and “well controlled” (where this phrase comes from, I don’t know). Sources for exit poll error — even more than in an ordinary poll: Differential non-response, Cluster effects, Absentee voters aren’t included Exit polls can be very inaccurate and systematically biased.

Nate claims he has no idea where the “misconception” that exit polls are accurate comes from. They come from the experts cited below – not from the controlled MSM. Nate calls these experts “conspiracy theorists”; his basic misconception is assuming there is no such thing as Election Fraud.

Nate states that the sources of exit poll errors are greater than in “ordinary” polls. His claim that exit poll non-response, cluster effect and absentee voters are not considered is false; these factors are used in weighting the sample. An exit poll cluster effect (typically 30%) is added to the theoretical margin of error. And of course, in an exit poll, unlike pre-election polls, voters are asked who they just voted for.

What about sources and methods of election fraud? What is the motivation of the MSM in forcing the unadjusted exit polls to match corrupted vote counts?

Exit polls can be very inaccurate and systematically biased. With this kind of history, you can see why no one who studies the exit polls believes that they can be used as an indicator of fraud in the way the conspiracy theorists do.

Nate expects rational viewers to believe that experts who study exit polls are conspiracy theorists because they have concluded that the polls are indicators of fraud. Does he truly believe these experts are delusional and/or incompetent in assuming that exit poll discrepancies (which exceed the margin of error) raise legitimate questions as to the likelihood of fraud?

Pollsters ask males and females in foreign countries the question “Who Did You Vote For” to check for possible election fraud. They ask the same question in the U.S. The difference is that here they essentially cover-up the fraud by adjusting the responses to match the recorded vote – and always assume ZERO fraud.

Why are exit polls tilted toward Sanders? Young voters are far more likely to complete the polls. Voter registration files are just starting to be updated. Sanders is a candidate with historic strength among young voters.

That is pure conjecture and not based on factual evidence.But this is not conjecture: more Sanders than Clinton voters (young and old) were disenfranchised. But Nate doesn’t mention that fact? What about all of those independents and Democrats who never got to the polls because of voided registrations, long lines and closing of polling places?

There are other challenges with exit polls in the primaries. Usually, the exit polls select precincts by partisanship — ensuring a good balance of Democratic and Republican precincts. This helps in a general election. It doesn’t do as much good in a primary.

Nate does not know how the precincts were selected. It’s proprietary information. Why won’t the exit pollsters tell us which precincts were polled ? Since they don’t, we must assume they have something to hide. The pollsters (actually the MSM) do not want analysts to compare precinct votes to the exit poll response. It’s clear that they might find discrepancies which indicate a high probability of vote miscounts.

Exit poll naysayers won’t dare mention the THIRD-RAIL of American politics: Election Fraud. They do not even concede that election fraud is a likely cause of the exit poll discrepancies. They just assume the exit polls are always wrong and that there is no such thing as Election Fraud. How ridiculous is that?

Election Fraud is as American as apple pie. Read what the true experts have to say who you arrogantly dismiss as Conspiracy Theorists. The true conspiracy is not a theory but a fact: the mainstream media is complicit in covering up Election Fraud.

This model estimates Sanders’ True Vote. The base case estimate is that Sanders had 52% of the total vote in primaries and caucuses.

It is important to note that Sanders’ exit poll share exceeded his1) recorded share in 24 of the 26 primaries. The probability is 1 in 190,000. 2) recorded share by greater than the margin of error in 11 primaries. The probability is 1 in 77 billion.

Is the exit poll shift to Clinton just pure luck? Or is something else going on?

Sensitivity analysis tables display the effects of flipped votes and uncounted provisional ballots over a range of assumptions.

Sanders

NATIONAL VOTE

Sensitivity

Uncounted

Ballots

70% of Uncounted

Votes to Sanders

5%

10%

15%

Machine counted Votes Flipped

to Sanders

Sanders Total Share

20%

51.7%

52.5%

53.2%

15%

51.2%

51.88%

52.6%

10%

50.6%

51.3%

52.0%

CALIFORNIA

Assuming a) 30% of California voters were disenfranchised, b) Sanders had 75% of provisional ballots, c) 10% of votes were flipped, Sanders won CA with a 55% share.

On Election Day, Clinton led Sanders 56.4-43.6%. Sanders leads in votes counted since ElectionDay by 52.3-47.7% . This indicates that approximately 15% of Sander’s machine votes were flipped to Clinton. Sanders late vote share exceeded his Election Day share in every CA county. Greg Palast explains why Bernie won California.

Simple California Vote share Model

There was no exit poll, so let’s assume the following.
a) Party-ID: 57% Independents vs. 43% Democrats
(estimated based on 2014-2016 surveys)
b) Sanders won 70% of Independents

Result:Clinton needed an implausible 85% of Democrats to match her 53.5% share.

Based on the following table of 25 Democratic primary exit polls (assuming confirmation that the WI and CT polls exceeded the MoE), the probability P that at least 12 would exceed the MoE is P= 2.30E-13 or 1 in 4.3 trillion.
P= 1-binomdist (11,25,0.025,true)

The 3 million Clinton vote margin is repeated endlessly by the media. This analysis shows that the number is grossly inflated. Sanders may very well be leading the popular vote and corresponding delegate count. This is an updated analysis of estimated probabilities of fraud in the Democratic primaries.

This is why Sanders has done much better than his recorded vote:

– Actual votes in caucus states are not included in the count – to the benefit of Clinton.– Exit polls indicated voting machines were hacked – to the benefit of Clinton.– Voter rolls were manipulated – to the benefit of Clinton.– Long lines and reduced polling stations reduced voter turnout – to the benefit of Clinton.

Sanders won the caucuses easily. The largest states were MN, WA, CO. The actual votes were approximated by multiplying caucus vote shares by the state voting population, which is proportional to the electoral vote.

Votes for the primaries were calculated based on late exit polls. Sanders did approximately 4% better in the polls than in his recorded share. The National Election Pool discontinued exit polls after the Indiana primary.

Sanders exit poll share exceeded his recorded share in 24 of the 26 primaries which were exit polled. The probability is 1 in 190.000. The difference between his exit poll share and recorded share exceeded the margin of error in 11 primaries. The probability is 1 in 77 billion. Is the exit poll shift to Clinton just pure luck? Or is something else going on?

Exit polls and caucuses indicate that Sanders has won 30 of 44 states and leads the electoral vote by 259-193. Clinton’s margin is reduced from 3 million to 1.3 million based on actual caucus votes and unadjusted exit polls.

A conservative estimate is that 10% of Sanders voters were disenfranchised due to long lines, reduced polling stations, switched/dropped party registrations, uncounted provisional ballots, etc. And 5% of Clinton’s votes were due to absentee ballot stuffing. New York, Arizona, Ohio, Illinois, Massachusetts and the southern red states are prime examples.

After adjusting for actual caucus votes and exit polls:

Clinton has won 11 RED states (normally Republican) by 2.1 million votes (64-36%)- before voter rolls, absentee/provisional ballot fraud. Clinton leads RED states by approximately 1.6 million (61-39%).

Sanders leads the non-RED states by 1.1 million- before voter rolls, absentee/provisional ballot fraud. Sanders leads non-RED states by approximately 57-43%, a 2.4 million vote margin.

“Going into Tuesday’s Democratic primary in Indiana, polls showed Bernie Sanders trailing Hillary Clinton by around 7 percent. The final tally had Sanders up by 6 percent, a 13 point difference that seems to follow a pattern of polling discrepancies in this primary process that are quite troubling. A couple of weeks ago I shared a post containing statistics compiled from CNN and the New York Times figures comparing Democratic Party primary exit polls and final election results. The numbers show a significant discrepancy between the two, favoring Hillary Clinton in all but one of the primaries by an average of 9.02 percent and in the New York primary by 16 percent. The post carried an incendiary headline, suggesting election fraud, which caused quite a ruckus. I’m glad it did. We need to have this discussion.

This posting led to the predictable onslaught of internet trolls calling me crazy, conspiracy theorist, etc., all the talking points that are being masterminded by the sleaze-meisters over at David Brock’s Correct the Record, a Hillary Clinton Super PAC. The post also brought criticism from the mainstream media, but that is no surprise to me. I’ve been there before. In the 2002-3 campaign to stop the Iraq war, others and I were characterized as crazy, conspiracy theorists, etc., as mainstream media shamefully abdicated its role in a functioning democracy by becoming a propaganda arm for Bush and Co. Yes. The New York Times did that, and the Washington Post and ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, PBS, NPR etc. We, the millions who across the world were saying no, who were aware of the lies that Bush and Co. were telling, were ignored by the mainstream media, marginalized as radicals and told by pundits to shut our unpatriotic mouths.

So when that happened to me again two weeks ago, often by the same organizations that had marginalized me for my opposition to the war in 2002-3, I recognized the familiarity of it all. Could my post have touched a nerve? It certainly did with Joshua Holland, who wrote in Raw Story that I was involved with a “rabbit hole of misinformation and conspiracism.” He then goes on to refute the claims of election fraud with seemingly empirical statistical evidence. Now, I am not a mathematician. But Richard Charnin is. He has two master’s degrees in applied mathematics and has followed presidential elections since 1952. He took issue with Mr. Holland’s article. I defer to his expertise: “Election Fraud: Response to Joshua Holland.”

This is how the exit pollsters forced a match to the IN recorded vote.

Indiana exit poll

Unadjusted

1323 resp

Clinton

Sanders

Men

42%

40%

60%

Women

58%

48%

52%

Total

100%

44.64%

55.36%

Final Adjusted

1323 resp

Clinton

Sanders

Men

41%

43%

57%

Women

59%

50%

50%

Total

100%

47.13%

52.87%

DATA SOURCES The table below was created by Theodore de Macedo Soares (tedsoares@yahoo.com) CNN is the source of the state exit polls which were downloaded shortly after closing. The NY Times is the source of the reported vote counts.